Reply to This is an interesting article on why some LACs are struggling with enrollment, most LACs lag R1s on yield

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "This is an interesting article on why some LACs are struggling with enrollment, most LACs lag R1s on yield"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Not surprising.  You can't blame it all on geography, though.  The selective national R1 colleges in disparate locations like Univ of Michigan, Univ of Georgia, USC, Northeastern, Rice, Emory, Notre Dame, etc. are all seeing record applications. A mix of urban, rural, etc.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs and it isn't just geography.[/quote]

Something deeper going on at SLACs? Social media, reality tv and the attention economy are definitely influencing many kids and adults to gravitate towards mediocre large public schools. Thankfully there is still a group of thoughtful places for people focused on learning rather than Greek life.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs…..low acceptance rates and outstanding outcomes is what is going on.[/quote]

Many LACs are "mediocre" while many flagship state universities are excellent. The very tippety top of LACs seem to be doing just fine, as illustrated on this thread, but the rest are starting to struggle to recruit and admit students and it's absolutely worthwhile discussing why. And I do think it's a combination of the following reasons:

1. enrollment cliff due to declining college age cohort sizes
2. wokification of private college culture and curriculums turning off conservative and centrist students, especially boys, who see the flagships as more apolitical and enjoyable.
3. Massive tuition disparity between expensive private colleges and flagships making people question the ROI. Even out of state flagships tend to be 2/3s the cost of a private LAC.

Not every LAC is going to be affected equally. But many are.[/quote]

Some valid points. The wokification comment is a bit foolish but the left did over rotate hard. The right has now done the same and will be paying the price in the fall. Kids are influenced by social media which is playing up the party culture of Southern schools and driving their popularity among average kids. I come from a UMC area and nobody from our area goes "south" except for kids who weren't ever in the running for a selective school. There is an exception now and then but there is no move South. Nobody is avoiding Bucknell, HWS, and St. Lawrence because they are "woke".

Your cost comment is likely incorrect for all except the very top SLACs, with merit I'd expect that most are about equal to OOS flagships in many states (cheaper and more expensive for others). I would be as concerned about non-selective publics, the schools that most kids today attend. They are suffering as bad a typical SLACs but nobody talks about them. As they get hit it might actually help improve the stats for the relatively non-selective R1s and R2s but it isn't because those schools are becoming more attractive, they'll just be standing. Small less selective schools in general are going to struggle, not just SLACs. Wealthy, prestigious schools are going to thrive no matter what. [/quote]

You are clearly resistant to the notion of cultural changes and cultural divides playing a role in what people look for in colleges and why many are turning their backs to LACs in favor of different kinds of colleges. I am in the Baltimore suburbs, which is hardly MAGA territory, and in the private school world where fully pay is more typical tha not, there's been a significant shift towards favoring both southern LACs and flagships over northern ones, with the flagships winning out. And this is the same cohort of kids who in my day would have never looked at public schools outside UVA or Michigan or Chapel Hill, and flocked north for liberal arts colleges.

There are absolutely conservative and centrist and even apolitical lean Democrat students, which is typical of most of the kids around me. The flag waving queer supporting allies are a minority. The latter is the one that embraces the liberal LAC culture, not only for the bubble environment, but because curriculum, administration and faculty are strongly attuned to their ideological beliefs. Like most people who embrace the preacher, your particular choir doesn't realize how off putting the same can be to other students. Add to it the high costs of attending a LAC sans merit or scholarships, it's hard to justify spending the money at a place you don't feel welcome at. And one can also question the seriousness of the scholarship and teaching at many LACs these days. 
[/quote]
Kids don’t want to go to a liberal arts college, because they’re off put by gay people existing? You think the next generation is deeply homophobic? That seems a bit…depressing for our future.[/quote]

Why is that the only small aspect of PP's longer comment you focused on?

I will say my liberal/progressive son also noted the larger per cent of gay vs straight men at numerous LACs we toured, including in a q&a with tour guides on the social dynamic. some LACS were described by guides as majority queer or sometimes two-thirds queer identifying. DS's school is about 1/4-1/3 gay identifying, so he's very comfortable wiht a mix, just seemed from our personal exp touring that it was a higher representation of queer students flocking more to LACs.[/quote]

This is complete fiction.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics